Author
Topic: Tele lens help (Read 4304 times)

A few weeks ago I purchased a Canon 60d and had asked for lens help on this forum. I decided to return the camera and buy the canon 6d, which I really like. I need some help deciding on a telephoto lens. It's not often that I shoot on the Long end, But there are times when I would like to have it, i.e. kids soccer game, zoo etc... Am I better off buying the 70-200 f4 usm or the 70-300 usm is. The question that keeps coming up in my head is will 200mm be long enough. I'm sort of on a budget for this lens choice, so that why I decided on these two. Your thoughts, suggestions? My current lens line up is 17-40, 24-105 and 40 2.8

Also, is the canon 100 macro L that much better than the non 100 macro non L some shots will be on a tripod indoors and some handheld outdoors.

A few weeks ago I purchased a Canon 60d and had asked for lens help on this forum. I decided to return the camera and buy the canon 6d, which I really like. I need some help deciding on a telephoto lens. It's not often that I shoot on the Long end, But there are times when I would like to have it, i.e. kids soccer game, zoo etc... Am I better off buying the 70-200 f4 usm or the 70-300 usm is. The question that keeps coming up in my head is will 200mm be long enough. I'm sort of on a budget for this lens choice, so that why I decided on these two. Your thoughts, suggestions? My current lens line up is 17-40, 24-105 and 40 2.8

Also, is the canon 100 macro L that much better than the non 100 macro non L some shots will be on a tripod indoors and some handheld outdoors.

Thanks, Anthony

I'd get the 70-300mm L or the 70-200mmf/4 L IS. Pass on the 70-300mm IS. Another good lens is the 100-400mmL, some don't like push pull, its fine by me.Any Macro lens is going to be a great lens as far as IQ goes. If you are on a tripod it doesn't matter much which one you choose. The 100L is my walking around lens, the IS lets me walk around and get all kinds of shots that I might not have time to use a tripood for, and I'm impatient in any event. I always seemed to get a lot of oof images with the non IS versions, focus was so slow that I pressed the shutter too soon.

Am I better off buying the 70-200 f4 usm or the 70-300 usm is. The question that keeps coming up in my head is will 200mm be long enough. I'm sort of on a budget for this lens choice, so that why I decided on these two.

Of the two, get the 70-200mm f/4L. The 70-300 non-L is pretty soft in the 200-300mm range, you'll get better images at 200mm with the L lens then cropping. The 6D has great high ISO performance, so you can bump up the ISO to get the shutter speed high enough.

Also, is the canon 100 macro L that much better than the non 100 macro non L some shots will be on a tripod indoors and some handheld outdoors.

For use on a tripod, no meaningful difference. For handheld close up shots (say, 0.25x-0.35x magnification), the IS is a big benefit in good light. In not-so-good light, or at 1:1 macro distances, you'll want the tripod anyway (with close subjects, it's always a challenge to get a deep enough DoF, and that usually requires narrow apertures and thus lots of light, or a tripod).

canon rumors FORUM

I would get the EF 70-200 f/4L USM over the consumer grade zoom. For about the same money, you are getting excellent build quality and better optics. It's widest aperture is a constant f/4, so you can always add a 1.4x teleconverter later to gain more reach.

I assume you are looking at the 70-300 non L. If so then for sure go for the 70-200 f4 L. If you can save a bit more the f4 IS is also nice but then you'd have the dilemma of whether or not to choose the 70-300L. I own and love the 70-200 f4 IS, someone will have to pry it out of my cold dead hands before I give it up. That being said I bought it when I was shooting crop, had I been shooting full frame I suspect I would have chosen the 70-300L for the added reach.

A few weeks ago I purchased a Canon 60d and had asked for lens help on this forum. I decided to return the camera and buy the canon 6d, which I really like. I need some help deciding on a telephoto lens. It's not often that I shoot on the Long end, But there are times when I would like to have it, i.e. kids soccer game, zoo etc... Am I better off buying the 70-200 f4 usm or the 70-300 usm is. The question that keeps coming up in my head is will 200mm be long enough. I'm sort of on a budget for this lens choice, so that why I decided on these two. Your thoughts, suggestions? My current lens line up is 17-40, 24-105 and 40 2.8

Also, is the canon 100 macro L that much better than the non 100 macro non L some shots will be on a tripod indoors and some handheld outdoors.

Perhaps I was lucky and bought an above-average 70-300 IS, but mine was almost as sharp as the L version I replaced it with. I've not used the non-IS version of the 70-200 f/4, but one consideration when comparing it with the 70-300 IS is that the IS may more than make up for loss of sharpness on the f/4 caused by lens movement (especially when you need slower shutter speeds, unless you plan to use a tripod); so that even though in studio conditions the f/4 is sharper, outdoors and off-tripod there may be little or no practical difference. If you have a very steady hand, consider the 200L f/2.8 prime as well.

Also, consider stretching your budget by buying second-hand. You can buy the marvelous 70-200 f/4 IS second-hand for well under $1000 (I've seen some not much more than $700), the 100-400L and 70-300L for c. $1,000, and, for even more reach, the Sigma 50-500 OS for c. $800-$900.

As for the 100L vs non-L macros, the 100L makes an excellent all-purpose lens if you like that focal length. I'm sure the non-L does too, but I like the extra "insurance" IS provides when, as is almost always the case with me, my use is hand-held and non-macro, sometimes in very low light.

I assume you are looking at the 70-300 non L. If so then for sure go for the 70-200 f4 L. If you can save a bit more the f4 IS is also nice but then you'd have the dilemma of whether or not to choose the 70-300L. I own and love the 70-200 f4 IS, someone will have to pry it out of my cold dead hands before I give it up. That being said I bought it when I was shooting crop, had I been shooting full frame I suspect I would have chosen the 70-300L for the added reach.